All you've done in your last two posts is say
"OK, you're right in that it's technically better, but academics will refuse to use it because they're too change-resistant."

Which means that it's the users that are stupid, forcing you to use a stupid system. Which is fine, but that doesn't mean my solution is not better.

Simply saying that the users will refuse to use a better solution doesn't mean that your solution isn't less stupid or more sensible. It's fully retarded and you'll know that if you've got any sense at all.
( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:35, 1 reply, 13 years ago)

It's not retarded.
it's as cheap as your solution, simpler, and for the users concerned, higher security. For people more IT literate, your solution is great. But it's not about change-resistance. Why should they change to use something they will never use again for a job they are doing as volunteers? It's like making it a condition of volunteering for the Samaritans that you have to be a fully trained psychotherapist.

"stupid" is not the same as "not interested in something not relevant" unless you want me to call you stupid because you can't design a process to scale up the manufacture of a therapuetic drug?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:44, Reply)

But it's NOT simpler and more secure. At all.
You don't need to be any more IT literate than you need to be to use HSBC's online banking system. It uses precisely the same basic technology. They can access it from their own home computers, so no cost for the volunteers. My solution may have a higher initial cost, but when you balance that up over years against courier fees and the inevitable lost iPads, I'd be willing to place my own money on it working out even at the very least.

And "stupid" is exactly the same as "not interested and not relevant" if they're shooting themselves in the foot by taking that attitude.

I am not calling the people stupid, I am calling the solution stupid. I am calling the people ignorant. If you wish to call me ignorant for not understanding the process to scale up the manufacture of a therapeutic drug, then you'd be exactly right to do so.
( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 11:54, Reply)

We're talking about 15 iPads
being shipped once every 18 months - 2 years. By the time your setup cost has been outweighed by courier costs I suspect both solutions will be obselete.

And your solution still offers no way of working on the documents while travelling, which is when we tend to do this stuff. What with us being volunteers, and having more than full time jobs already.

No-one is being shot in the foot by anything, since the only people I've come across that have a problem with this are you and Al.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 12:07, Reply)

OK, MB, your solution is best.
I'll look forward to reading about the loss of confidential data in the newspapers.
( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 12:09, Reply)

it's not my solution.
And I agree yours is more secure, but that's only one aspect of the situation.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 12:14, Reply)

Sorry, by "your" I meant "the existing".

( Kroney, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 12:15, Reply)

It's OK.
I still love you.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 24 Sep 2012, 12:18, Reply)